两种方法检测耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌的比较  

A comparison of two methods for detection of Methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

作　　者：曾松芳 张娟 赖晓敏[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省苍南县人民医院,浙江苍南325800 [2]浙江省苍南县疾控中心,浙江苍南325800

出　　处：《中国卫生检验杂志》2010年第12期3328-3329,共2页Chinese Journal of Health Laboratory Technology

摘　　要：目的:评价MRSA ID显色培养基法和ATB专家系统法在筛选耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)的可靠性。方法:对临床分离的62株金黄色葡萄球菌,68株凝固酶阴性葡萄球菌,同时用ATB细菌鉴定仪及药敏专家系统和MR-SA ID显色培养基法作筛选对比实验。结果:通过对130份标本的比较分析,MRSA ID显色培养基法阳性率为45.4%(59/130),ATB专家系统阳性率为32.3%(42/130),二种方法阳性率比较差异有统计学意义(χ2=15.06,P<0.05)。以ATB专家系统为标准,MRSA ID显色培养基法筛选MRSA的灵敏度为100.0%(42/42),特异性为80.7%(71/88),阳性预告值为71.2%(42/59),阴性预告值为100.0%(71/71)。结论:MRSA ID显色培养基法具有较好的灵敏度和阴性预告值,可以作为筛选MRSA的较好方法。Objective：To compare and evaluate the credibility of MRSA ID ogenicem medium and ATB expert systems in the selection of Methicilin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus（MRSA）.Methods： 62 strains Staphylococcus aureus and 68 strains Coagulase-negative Staphylococcus were analyzed using MRSA ID ogenicem medium.At the same time,these samples were analyzed using ATB expert systems,which results were compared with that of the MRSA ID ogenicem medium.Results： The statistical results from 130 specimens showed that the positive rate of MRSA ID ogenicem medium method was 45.4%（59/130）,the positive rate of the ATB expert systems method was 32.3%（42/130）,These was significant statical difference found（χ2=15.06,P0.05）.With ATB expert systems method as standard,MRSA ID ogenicem medium method detection results showed the sensitivity 100.0%（42/42）,specificity 80.7%（71/88）,positive predictive71.2%（42/59）,and negative predictive value 100.0%（71/71）.Conclusion： MRSA ID ogenicem medium method to be provided with better sensitivity and negative predictive value,and it can be a better method for the selestion of MRSA.

关 键 词：金黄色葡萄球菌 耐甲氧西林 显色培养基 ATB专家系统 

分 类 号：R378.11[医药卫生—病原生物学]